Scientific Knowledge Is Produced By Successful Scientific Explanations

The production of scientific knowledge is produced through successful scientific explanations, evidence, inference, and consensus (Kawalec, 2017). The claim that scientific knowledge is produced through successful scientific explanations is partially through since scientific knowledge has to fulfill other aspects to be considered valid. First, scientific knowledge has to be backed up with logical scientific explanations. Secondly, these explanations have to contain evidence that can be argued against. Based on the different arguments presented, the best evidence is chosen in regard to inference to the best explanation (IBE). The last factor for consideration in the production of scientific knowledge is attaining a consensus or rather agreement on the scientific explanation attained following IBE philosophy (Kawalec, 2017).

Understanding the production of scientific knowledge can be attained through comprehensive comprehension of the key differences between logical accounts of scientific knowledge and inference to the best evidence. When coming up with a scientific theory, several logical accounts can be created to explain the existence of the theory. However, in order to reach a conclusion, inference to the best explanation is critical. However, this does not nullify the significance of having logical explanations only that these logical accounts cannot be justified as the optimum explanations. For example, drawing from the Semmelweiss case study on childbed fever, there were several logical accounts of scientific knowledge that were used to explain the difference between the causes of post-partum maternal deaths in the Viennese hospital. For instance, Semmelweiss provided several logical accounts such as the difference in climate and population but while searching for the best explanation, the two logical accounts were nullified since the condition was similar in both wards(Raza, 2017). The third explanation provided by Semmelweiss was the difference in hygiene which was later accepted as the best explanation. From these accounts, it can be seen that a major difference between logical accounts and IBE is that logical accounts provide the best or rather potential explanations to a subject while IBE stresses the need for comparative analysis of competing potential explanations (Raza, 2017). On the contrary, in logical accounts of scientific explanations, conclusions are drawn from either inductive or deductive techniques which draw their conclusion from a single line of thought.

The reason as to why successful scientific explanations only cannot be solely used in the production of scientific knowledge is because even logical accounts of scientific knowledge are drawn from successful scientific explanations (Kawalec, 2017). However, these accounts form the core components of scientific knowledge and that is the reason why it is often stated that successful scientific explanation is what produces scientific knowledge. However, the actual verifiable scientific knowledge has to be subject to comparative analysis and only the best explanation can be chosen as in the case of coming up with a theory or validating a hypothesis. According to Lipton’s evaluation of inference to the best explanation, he notes that IBE should not be considered as the most probable or rather likeliest explanation as presented by Hempel but rather the loveliest explanation. The loveliest explanation as presented by Lipton is one that offers the most understanding of a hypothesis (El Mawas, 2017).

Drawing from Hempel’s model of confirmation, scientific knowledge can be produced by identifying a hypothesis to be tested. The hypothesis presented by Semmelweiss was that there is a relationship between hygiene and the high mortality rate in the first hospital. The second step in the model of confirmation is generating predictions that are implied by the hypothesis(Raza, 2017). Semmelweis predicted that implementation of handwashing improved hygiene could reduce the high mortality rate in the first hospital. The third step is coming up with an experiment that will be used to test whether the prediction generated in the second step is correct. The designed experiment in Semmelweiss’s case was handwashing between the autopsy process and examination of patients. In his experiment, he used chlorinated lime or rather calcium hypochlorite which he used basing on the fact that chlorinated solution had yielded positive results in removing putrid smell from infected autopsy tissue, and as a result, he concluded that there is a possibility that chlorinated solution destroyed the contaminating cadaveric agent(Raza, 2017). The last step is to deduce the results of the experiment to ascertain whether the predictions are correct or not. In the case whereby the predictions are correct, the hypothesis is confirmed while in the case whereby the hypothesis is found not to be correct, then the hypothesis is disconfirmed. In the Semmelweiss experiment, there was a reduction in the mortality rate and thus the hypothesis was confirmed which related hygiene to the high mortality rate in the first hospital (Raza, 2017).

Semmelweiss can be justified to have produced a successful scientific explanation because he applied deductive reasoning and eliminated all the possible logical explanations to remain with the best explanation. The best explanation was then tested through an experiment that yielded positive results. In Semmelweiss’s experiment, the mortality rate from April 1847 started declining following the implementation of the handwashing intervention. Therefore, a successful scientific explanation is one that yields positive results following a properly conducted scientific experiment.

From the case, it can be concluded that Semmelweiss was successful and did not just make his best guess. However, there are critics which argue that there is no clear explanation of how Semmelweiss provided causal mechanisms by giving a logical explanation of the relationship between washing hands using chlorinated lime prevented maternal deaths. This is possibly drawn from the fact that there was no test conducted to ascertain the scientific components of the chlorinated lime that were used to kill germs that increased the rate of maternal deaths(Raza, 2017). However, the general conclusion provided by the evidence of reduced deaths confirms that the chlorinated lime killed germs that caused the disease. Therefore, it is appropriate to conclude that the relationship between explanation and inference is best described as abductive inference as put forward by Hempel (Raza, 2017). Summing up, the claim that scientific knowledge is produced by successful scientific explanations is true. However, abductive inference and experiments have to be conducted for validation purposes of scientific knowledge.

Bibliography

El Mawas, O. (2017). The Bad Lot Argument: A Defense against Lipton’s Objections.

Kawalec, P. (2017). Towards an evolutionary model of science dynamics: Generation and production of scientific knowledge. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa, 53(4 (214)), 405–428.

Raza, S. A. (2017). Theory of scientific investigation by Hempel and a case of Semmelweis. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 6(2), 198.